Comments on: Morning Linkshttp://www.theagitator.com/2010/08/25/morning-links-371/
It rankles me when somebody tries to tell somebody what to do.Thu, 29 Jan 2015 14:59:44 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.1By: Kayak2U Blog » Blog Archive » A matter of perspectivehttp://www.theagitator.com/2010/08/25/morning-links-371/comment-page-3/#comment-414619
Thu, 02 Sep 2010 04:21:39 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=17493#comment-414619[…] Balko link viz "Earth and the moon, as seen from Mercury" a week back sent me clicking hither and […]
]]>By: jeffhttp://www.theagitator.com/2010/08/25/morning-links-371/comment-page-2/#comment-414589
Thu, 02 Sep 2010 01:11:37 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=17493#comment-414589remember the obama speach about too much info and how confusing it is, more sensorship on the way,if you like this then make him a two termer
]]>By: Duncan20903http://www.theagitator.com/2010/08/25/morning-links-371/comment-page-2/#comment-413616
Fri, 27 Aug 2010 20:46:02 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=17493#comment-413616“Oh well, if you’re not breaking any laws, you have nothing to worry about! Honest!”

That’s a thing lots of people claim, but it’s simple minded thinking as well as being patently false.

I have an extensive collection of marital aids. Vibrators, dildos, blindfolds, handcuff, Venus Butterflies, etc. I’d really like to keep that private. It’s not like everyone needs to know. They’re not illegal where I am but I really don’t have any interest in explaining to any authorities how a fleshlight works.

Should I be ok with cameras in rest rooms provided by merchant’s? I do know lots of shrink leaves the premises as a five finger discount via the restroom on. Quite a large % of shoplifters use the restrooms as part of their larceny. I want to be clear. I object to having a surveillance camera in the bathroom stall. It wasn’t illegal to take a dump the last time I checked.

The falsehood that I quoted above would have been equally valid in Nazi Germany. Just obey the law and you have nothing to worry about. Another variation is that “It’s a free country as long as you do what you’re told to do”. The latter came from my Junior year in high school the history teacher spent the better part of an hour explaining that. The she went on to the qualifications to be President, you know, at least 35 years old, a natural born citizen of the US, has to be Caucasian, and no bald men allowed either. I swear on my mother’s grave that’s what she was teaching.

“Chaos and market fluctuations are natural” – yes, but they do a lot of damage that limits potential growth and prosperity in the future.

Yes, they do damage. Eliminating “damage” in the market should not be a goal of any capitalist. No, they do not limit potential growth. “Natural” Market fluctuations elminate the weak users of capital and provide new growth opportunities for the efficient. Not allowing the natural fluctuations results in a build up of forces that eventually force a collapse: massive crisis, massive debt incurred to “stimulate and stablize”, drain from debt payment, inflation, etc…protectionist policies that entrench inefficient producers (GM) while placing innovative-sapping barriers to entry, and spreading higher costs to consumers and tax-payers alike.

Relative stability is one of the keys to prosperity. US prosperity never took off until we figured out how to provide relative economic stability that dampened the natural flucuations.

Relative stability is not a key to prosperity. It is curious why you think this. Relative stability is one of the keys to getting re-elected and maintaining status quo for the current holders of capital. As for US prosperity being linked to “stability”, a few million immigrant workers are feeling shunned for their contribution.

Having large numbers of people disposed of their homes for example makes them sigificantly less employable and limits future growth.

Yes, the housing crisis caused by Keynesian economic policies (like the ones you are supporting: stimulus) would have large numbers of people disposed of their homes and would be terrible. THAT is a point for my side, not yours.

Don’t worry about defeating my position…not that you are. Mises himself (and Rothbard, Hayek, and others) knew Keynes would “win” when married to democracy and a population willing to vote for the best promise of free cheese.

America has not in any way, shape or form shown itself to be a country that is able to end the love affair with Keynes and collectivism/socialism. And, in fact the last decade has shown this love affair to be even stronger than most in the Austrian School suspected. Austrian studies enable economists to at least note where and how policies will fail…and profit from it…as stated before.

So, by all means, another round of stimulus and tell the Chinese ambassador I’m at lunch.

Especially not when libertarians still oppose functional, tested, and necessary social safety net programs while championing business-and-corporate interests.

Who tested? Who declared them functional? Who declared them necessay? What business and corp interests are we championing that you’re particularly annoyed at because they harm da poor?

For the record, Libertarians and libertarians want to help the poor folk of this country (and all countries) much, much, much more than all the Democrats and Republicans combined and then raised to the power of Michael Moore’s pant size. So there’s my starting point.

]]>By: Boyd Durkinhttp://www.theagitator.com/2010/08/25/morning-links-371/comment-page-2/#comment-413394
Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:28:42 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=17493#comment-413394The only economists that supported stimulus were statist/Keynsians. Or rather, Austrians did not support the stimulus.

Please don’t get me wrong, I’m very happy to see Keynsians in charge as the failures of their policies are easy to predict and profit from. Isn’t that the ultimate test for an economist?

No, I think that in the spring of 2009 there was a broad consensus that some stimulus was needed. I am sure that there were Austrian/Chicago School dissenters, which is why I didn’t say “unanimous” consensus, but I think it’s fair to say that even many conservatives recognized the need to stimulate the economy.

]]>By: Ben (the other one)http://www.theagitator.com/2010/08/25/morning-links-371/comment-page-2/#comment-413385
Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:35:27 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=17493#comment-413385MDGuy #89 – Like Mattocracy (#56), it all boils down to your visceral dislike of stimulus programs despite the very wide economic consensus that they were necessary.

Just because you viscerally dislike something, however, doesn’t make the policy unsound. There’s a reason we have a Council of Economic Advisers, a Federal Reserve, etc., instead of just asking some layperson what their gut tells them to do.

]]>By: Martyhttp://www.theagitator.com/2010/08/25/morning-links-371/comment-page-2/#comment-413368
Thu, 26 Aug 2010 14:45:03 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=17493#comment-413368I can find ‘evidence’ to support my position that cash for clunkers was a failure. I can find ‘proof’ that it was a rousing success. I’m with MDguy- I can’t see the benefit. Detractors use one set of criteria and supporters use another and no one can agree how to evaluate it.

any deal this complex to evaluate, to me, is smoke and mirrors. like the tax code- it sucks.

]]>By: Leon Wolfesonhttp://www.theagitator.com/2010/08/25/morning-links-371/comment-page-2/#comment-413361
Thu, 26 Aug 2010 14:08:41 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=17493#comment-413361@88 – More reason to formalise designating who should be in charge of making your medical care as a specific, doctor-recorded decision.
]]>By: MDGuyhttp://www.theagitator.com/2010/08/25/morning-links-371/comment-page-2/#comment-413357
Thu, 26 Aug 2010 13:53:18 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=17493#comment-413357Sam comes up to you and sticks a gun in your face and demands $5,000. Not wanting to get shot, you hand over the money. Sam promptly uses that $5,000 to buy a vehicle from me (which I gladly part with because it’s worth way less than $5,000) and then sets the vehicle on fire. Sam turns to you and says, “you really should be grateful for what I’m doing! Now MDGuy is going to go out and spend $5,000 towards a new car! Think of how spending that money will stimulate the economy!”

Wouldn’t you want to kick Sam in the nuts?

]]>By: Mike Thttp://www.theagitator.com/2010/08/25/morning-links-371/comment-page-2/#comment-413354
Thu, 26 Aug 2010 12:59:12 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=17493#comment-413354Here’s one for your next argument on euthanasia: Canadian hospital dehydrates disabled man. Note: the man was not comatose, but rather disabled. From what I can tell, he just had a severe stroke, but there are signs that he’s otherwise alert.
]]>By: Ben (the other one)http://www.theagitator.com/2010/08/25/morning-links-371/comment-page-2/#comment-413351
Thu, 26 Aug 2010 12:20:11 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=17493#comment-413351A few comments on Coyoteblog’s chart (linked by MDGuy, above):

1. It uses seasonally adjusted numbers (in dollars) for new and used car sales combined. Since (contrary to your argument, above, MDGuy) used car sales figures were essentially flat throughout 2009, combining them isn’t a problem per se, but it tends to inflate the totals a bit.

2. The administration’s assessment of C4C looked at units sold vs. dollar sales. I think there are probably some sound policy reasons for this approach (e.g., the whole point of C4C was to increase sales of more fuel-efficient – typically cheaper – cars), but I think it bears pointing out.

3. I again refer to the Maritz analysis which addresses some other factors, including program participants’ estimates of when they would have purchased a new car but for the program, and incidental sales generated over time by additional dealer traffic.

4. Even if one assumes, contrary to the evidence cited by the White House and Maritz, that the program borrowed from future car sales, there is some economic benefit to that. A starving man could rationally benefit from receiving a meal now even if he has to pay it back in the future.

5. I agree with hattio that MDGuy is trying to have his cake and eat it to regarding the “wash” argument. If the vehicle sales were a wash then there’s no reason to believe that the ripple effects (e.g., used car dealers’ sales) were a wash, too. (I think the sales evidence in the Commerce spreadsheet puts to rest the ripple effect argument, however.)